Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 11, 2013 8:30am-9:01am PDT

8:30 am
this is a good process. this is maybe less expensive. but, it does create a loophole. that is, because you know now, the business that was required in the city is no longer, you know the license for the establishment if i am understanding correctly and that gave the health department purview to go in and inspect and catch violations now it is more strictly a criminal matter. >> but if the individual needs to get it through the state, your office like when you go into an establishment can you check to see if they have their state licenses? >> we are going to be doing is requiring all of the exempt establishments to give their lists of their practitioners. and we may be going out to those establishments and
8:31 am
checking for sure that they have those, or the state license. >> okay, good. >> my concern is like what happened in the medical marijuana grow industry, then, you know, people, you know, these are criminal and they are going to find a loophole and so they will get the ten people with the practitioner that said okay, we have them on this one and that one and they do revolving things and i believe that it creates a loophole and i believe that the sfpd should be involved. >> a poll guys for those in the industry... and i don't want to mix it up. but i just from a public safety... >> it seems to me that the state requirements and the city's requirements, should be the same. that would help eliminate some of the loophole here. >> and the city established the requirements before the state. >> right. >> could that be changed? >> it could be. >> it seems like that would be
8:32 am
helpful. >> do you want to take any action on this? >> any? >> commissioner? director? >> i do think that there has been some broader served policy questions sort of discussed and i think this because there are, there are establishments and correct me if i am wrong, there are establishments that are not state certified. and not all practitioners, because if you are an establishment and you have multiple practitioners in your establishment, to not have to pay, and san francisco establishment fee, all of your practitioners have to be state certified and it has to stay that way. >> like you cannot hire any practitioner that is not state certified. or contract with them or what
8:33 am
have you? >> have them work in your establishment. so, i think what this is doing and if i am correct, is making sure that right now, for those establishments, or practitioners, who are not state certified, which and it does give the city some ability to be able to regulate them. and you know, if it is sort of the direction of the commission in terms of moving more towards all practitioners or establishments being state certified, i think that maybe we might want to have, and i think that maybe we might want to have a deeper policy kind of discussion as to what that may mean, for our ability to be able to be able to deal with the sex trade, i mean, the sex trafficking, and the prostitution is things of that
8:34 am
sort. so, but this is at least, this at least codifies those who are state establishments, and are not and practitioners who they will not have to pay the local fee. >> right. >> that is good. >> so, is there anything that is stopping them from switching mode at will? >> in other words, today, a totally exempt shop but next week they will want to hire someone local and i will just switch in the following week and i will get rid of the local. are they able to switch ad hoc right now? >> right now, what they do is exempt and they hire someone who was not state certified. and then they are required to get a permit from us. okay? and then, if they actually again, show that all of them were exempt and then they can ask for an exemption. >> would it help at all,
8:35 am
commissioners if they had to designate one of the other s for a period of time? >> is that eliminate any? >> if they are going to be non-exempt they have to remain non-exempt for a period of time and if they are going to be exempt they have to be exempt for a period of time. just a thought and i don't know if it is a good idea or not. >> that would be a state regulation. >> i think that we are, you know, some of it should be that if you are not exempt, then you are going through the city for your licensing. but i think that what we are kind of looking over all at is codifying a level of competency for everyone who is permitted in this area and be it by the city or the state. i mean, that would be my
8:36 am
recommendation, would be to recommend the city basically make their requirements the same as the state. okay. >> yeah? >> because, as i have listened to the public comment, too, you know, the state requirement is stricter, so those who are legit and for saving money too, they are going to go through the state. so you are more legit, you know, operators, you know, we will take the state and you know the ones who are the shady ones are going to be the ones that go through the city for the last hours and which, i like because then, you know, you can actually go in to those establishments and you know, do your thing. that is why this as it is written out i am actually fine with it. because the way that it was described to me during public comment it is pretty strict. >> so, but i do like
8:37 am
commissioner dooley, what you said, i would amend it and approve this, however, just make the city requirement match those of the state. and just make it even. >> and i can go along with that. >> i like that. >> commissioner riley? >> i think that makes sense, but is it possible? can we change our requirements? >> commissioners would it be amending this ordinance or with the policy direction? >> commissioner riley asked a question, to director. >> you know, again this is just really about the state regulation. and if we are making that recommendation, to actually change the health code and that will have to be different legislation. >> could we just approve this and then make a directive? >> yes. >> and adjusting this change.
8:38 am
>> yes. >> okay. >> i will go for that. >> that is what we should do. >> okay. so would i motion that we approve this as it is, and then have a policy recommendation that, you know, going forward at a later date that the city adapt the health department adapt their regulations the same as the state to match that. >> do you think that the president can make a motion? >> yeah. >> i can't make the motion. >> i will make that motion. >> could i just tell you guys, like i would like to see something from sfpd, just what they think. some kind of a recommendation they should be included in this process. >> could we make a motion? >> i think that is in the policy discussion moving
8:39 am
forward in terms of maybe this is something that the permitting committee can work with on the current local, massage, establishment, practitioner, permits, and what we can do to strengthen them. >> do you got that? >> okay. >> commissioners? is there a second to that motion? >> i will read the motion and who made the motion? >> commissioner yee riley made a motion to recommend the approval of file number 1 30400 with a policy recommendation of moving forward dph work with the sfpd to adopt local regulations that are more in line with the state regulations. is there a second to that? >> second. >> roll call?
8:40 am
>> president adams? >> yes. >> commissioner dooley. >> yes. >> commissioner dwight. >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien. >> yes. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> yes. >> vice president white. >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley. >> yes. >> that passes 7-0. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next item, >> commissioners item seven, presentation and discussion on the implementation of the public health code article 39, dog walking ordinance by kat brown of animal care and control, discussion and possible action item. >> there is an action item >> good evening, commissioners. >> my name is kat brown and i am the deputy director at the department of animal control and i have a hand out and a powerpoint and if you would like them to go along with your
8:41 am
discussion our education about what we have done with the dog walking legislation that was passed in january of 2012. and it has taken us 18 months to implement. and animal care and control is in the department, that is in charge of the implementation as it is described in the law. and rebecca kats the director of animal control and control it is yours tonight. >> thank you. >> i just want to acknowledge deputy director brown has been putting in a lot of time on these regulations meeting with the stake holers and getting feedback and we have held the numerous community meetings as well as having ape hearing before the animal control and welfare commission so that the members of the public have an opportunity to ask questions and be sure and make any discussions and let us know of
8:42 am
any concerns, so the process has been large and arduous and i want to give the credit to the deputy director who sadly for me is retiring in three weeks. but, this is hers long gone and so she is going out with a bang. >> okay. hopefully this will not take too long. >> we are almost there. i am told. i am going to sneak up here and just hand these out. >> don't hesitate to interrupt if you have questions along the way or i would be happy to answer the questions as will rebcca if you have questions at the end of the powerpoint.
8:43 am
>> understanding article 39 and this is the health code. >> the powerpoint was made and that meeting was held in may, may 9th of 2013. just a couple of weeks ago, it seems like forever, but it was just a couple of weeks ago. and starting july 1, the dog walking regulation is in effect, during the course of the last few months, we have been educating and doing out reach to the dog walking communities. and we have had three out reach meetings and in various parts of city that discuss the dog walking legislation and how it will impact the dog walkers and we think that there may be as many as 500 dog walkers in the city of san francisco and city
8:44 am
and county. and maybe of the dog walkers may not feel like they need to permit and many may not have to permit. based on where they are walking their dogs because this law is specific to park properties, city part property, and other properties so if you are walking the dogs on the city streets you do not have to be permitted if you are walking ggrn a you do not have to be permitted. >> so fort fugston >> it is ggra. and that is recreational area. >> thank you. >> okay. >> but i just want to... >> you better turn that on. >> i do want to add that ggnra does intend to implement a dog walker permitting procedure, they did not sign on to san
8:45 am
francisco's because they believe that the numbers should be limited to 6 dogs not 8. >> the slide that you have in front of you here is the post card on the back is that particular slide, these post cards were widely distributed at pet supply and dog walking businesses and other parks and other kinds of places where we might reach dog walkers. and it describes the website where there is a whole slew of information. and i mean that the law itself is about 9 or 10 pages and it is very detailed and very involved, and so, as it a way to out reach, we tried to limit and kind of condense the stuff that is important for the dog walkers to learn. what we are trying to address and it was not the animal and
8:46 am
control law it was one that came before the supervisors and before the animal welfare and the animal control and welfare commission about ten years ago and so it has a long history and it was brought forward by a number of dog walkers who were very concerned about what was going on in their own field. they were worried about the safety for the dogs and they felt that the standards need to be improved. and some of what i have heard, today, from the massage therapists and others that there is reason to believe that these small businesses want to be professionalized and we hope and we feel that this dog walking legislation has brought a sense of professionalism to the field of dog walking. >> and i am not going to read what supervisor weiner said, or sally stevens said i am just going to run through this pretty quick so that we can get
8:47 am
the to the meat of the law. i want to talk with you about the dog walkers, and the different types of dog walkers there are, there are four different types and the dog walker number one, and they are grannied in and so that means that they have been in business and they have had a business registration certificate for three years. from march of 2010. and what we mean by grannied in is that the requirement for training is waived. that is the only thing that grannied in means is that that requirement for training, for dog walker training has been waived. dog walker number two, is brand new. so they have to go through the list and have a business registration certificate and have to obtain a vehicle if they are transporting and fill
8:48 am
out a dog walker permit application and these are the things that are required of a new business owner current business certificate and a million dollar insurance policy and government issued id that we can check on their identification. and they pay the dog walker fee of $240 and then obtain a photo id badge and vehicle and inspection plakered as administered by the department of animal control and care. >> that is dog walker number two. the dog walker number three, the grannied in employees, so both 3a and 3 b are employees of dog walking businesses. and so, 3a are those that are grannied in and that is that they have worked for a licensed dog walker that is somebody who has had a business certificate for three years, dating back to
8:49 am
march of 2010. and then, they do not have to take the training. otherwise, all of those other things apply, and then, dog walker 3 d, they do have to take the training. and this is dog walker training that is specific to what it is to be a dog walker in the city of san francisco. >> and this is just where i want to jump in because the business owners who are not walking dogs themselves in they are running an operation and they have dog walkers under them and they or some other type of business that employs dog walkers some of the boarding facilities do those kinds of things they are not required to do or get a permit if they are not actually, the permit goes with the individual who is walking the dog so for the enforcement purposes of this legislation you have to be able to produce a permit upon request to park, patrol or whatever it is. >> moving along, we are going to talk about the fees, it is
8:50 am
$240 initial set up fee. and $100, annual renewal fee for permits, dog walker permits, if you lose your badge there will be a $50 id badge replacement and it expires every year on 3/31 and so that is as requested by the tax treasurer tax collector's office and if commercial dog walker training is required, this is what you must do in order to get that certificate or credential. you have to provide us with proof that you have done the dog walker training, 20 hours in the classroom or apprenticeship of 40 hours, in order to become a trainer then there is a list of other requirements that you have to fulfill to become a trainer, and the curriculum is described
8:51 am
pretty much in the law. so you will see, what is required if you go on the, or on this particular website, there is a table that describes what needs to be covered, and approximately what the timing is. where can a dog walker apply for a permit? and have a vehicle inspected? that is animal control. and the enforcers will be the park control and pec and port authority. officers so it is really not something that we are going to enforce. >> the vehicle inspection sheet is next. and pretty much describes, it is not very big so you can't really see it. if you are interested in it, i can send you a copy or send you an imail with a copy for that. >> could i just briefly commissioners, these forms are in your binder, and the summary sheet list where they are located under item number etc..
8:52 am
>> thank you. >> that is helpful to look at that. and, yeah? >> and i just if you look at the vehicle inspection form you will see that we are trying to be as flexible as possible while insurancing the safety of animals being transported so we had acceptable and not acceptable and then acceptable alternatives so that comes in response to the question about, okay, what if i don't have space in my vehicle to have a crate for every single dog, then the questions are how are you keeping them safe? if they are sliding among the dogs or one that does not get along or if they slide into each other, how do you prevent them from being injured and so when the officers do the inspection they are trying to be as flexible as possible to allow the people to operate in the business model but in a safeway for the animals as well.
8:53 am
>> this is the safety equipment, >> yeah. >> you probably can't see it so well. but it is in your binder, just to review, what is required for a dog walker to move forward by july first, it must get a permit. they must complete the permit application and submit that and they can review the law at sfdog walker and we have done some work to get the permit design and the plaques ready and we will issue those as early as next week. maybe the end of this week, it depends, but we are trying to get them ahead of time so that the people can have things lined up. we have received probably a dozen or more applications completed applications and we have inspected over 75
8:54 am
vehicles, and we expect compliance, and the dog walking community has shown a great deal of response and willingness up to this point. >> and you know i can't say that is 100 percent but certainly we have had quite a few showing up at our shelter. calling and asking questions, and wanting to comply. >> so over all, i think that it is moving along famously, if there are complaints, the last number of slides have to do with where people call to get or give complaints about what is happening in their parks or at the pec. and of course, if there is an emergency that are related to abuse and neglect, and animal care and control can still be called and can be called today. and it will still be called after that. and then, if there are or a need for fines and penalties, there is the possibility of revokation of a permit when someone is not complying with the law.
8:55 am
we can also do administrative hearings around offenses that may be called to by the public, called up by the public. let me see, is there any wes that you have for me, i do have a couple of applications if you would like to look at them. you can go on-line and look at the entire thing if you like. >> commissioner questions? >> commissioner o'brien? >> go ahead. >> thank you. >> so, was it animal control that delayed the legislation? >> did we delay? >> it was set to go back in july or something and i don't know care and control delayed? >> july of this year? >> i think that we had, there was the attempt to put it through by january of this year, but we did not have the
8:56 am
ability to put it into place, so we asked for the greater extension which was to july first, 2013. we also wanted to give the dog walking community an opportunity to be heard and we wanted to have meetings with them and some of them who wanted to be involved in figuring out what the parameters were for the training and others kinds of things and implementation and so we did it right, we had a task force and we got the people together and we did it the long way. >> so is there any, and what is the consensus between the dgra and the six dog limit and i remember that discussion and we actually allowed one extra dog on the grounds and it was the walker's dog and we figured that they know their dog really well and they can handle and so we subtracted that wisely or not wisely and i do remember that and so now i am curious as to how we are going to
8:57 am
reconcile that if we had a uniform rule across the see, so they are not going to a place that the rules are easier. >> we did reach out and having reciprocity and they were not interested because they wanted the 6 dog limit and that i think this legislation was introduced with 6 dogs and there was a push to increase the nup. so, the city ended up with an 8-dog limit. and they were not willing to sign on to that. >> so i think that the initial consequences of that is that a number of dog walkers will gravitate towards the ggna properties and the field and that kind of area. when and if the dog management plan comes out it will include a dog walker permitting process that is limited to 6 dogs at which point that will drive more dog walkers into the parks
8:58 am
and city properties. so, american park tells me when there was that tsunami warning a huge number ended up not on the coastal areas ended up in the parks around the city. >> commissioner dooley >> if someone is an employee of a dog walking company, what i am reading is that each walker is required to have a business license? >> no. >> each walker is required to if they are walking or running their own business, but they must have a business license, if they are a working for a company, the way that it worked with the tax collector is that in order to allow each person to have a permit that comes up and each person has to be an independent contractor and so it is an $26 fee to be a independent contractor, and the number is determined by how many employees that you may have and they have to get that
8:59 am
business license and then, but as far as the license goes, and all of that, they can use their employers. >> and what about the badge? i am curious as someone who goes to chrisy field every day and i see what it is like for the dog walkers and kind of a rough and tumble business that they are in. what kind of badge are they are going to have that they will not lose or i saw the $50 fee for replace it. >> we are issuing and taking a while to get this program up and into place and this is sort of like the city ids and if you have seen those and the plastic badges that have a template and the picture and all of that and were designing them and hoping to issue them sooner than late and her it has been complex on our end and the hard badge with our id and they don't want to wear them but do have to produce them upon request. >> it will not be required to be seen on them? >> that the vehicle plaque must
9:00 am
be displayed in the window. >> are the walkers responsible for making sure that every dog is licensed? >> yeah, i mean, what happens currently is that if there is an incident we don't go in and enforce licensing laws but what happens is if there is an incident usually it will be a dog on dog scuffle and the license regulates that the rabies are current and and the law. and throughout the state really. and so, if the dog walker now does not have a license for the dog, we will issue a citation now. and an owner could come in and remedy it and it goes away but that is how it is done and that is only method of doing it and we can't track down the owners and the same will be the case and we have talked a lot in the out reach with the dog walkers about providing t